A Map of Fukushima's Radiation Risks - ScienceInsider

Page 1 of 3

AAAS.ORG

FEEDBACK

HELP

LIBRARIANS

Daily News

News Home

ScienceNOW

ScienceInsider

Premium Content from Science

About Science News

Home > News > ScienceInsider > April 2011 > A Map of Fukushima's Radiation Risks

A Map of Fukushima's Radiation Risks

by Jocelyn Kaiser on 22 April 2011, 11:17 AM | 7 Comments

Email

Print |

More

PREVIOUS ARTICLE

NEXT ARTICLE

A new map from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) shows the long-term radiation risks to people living near Japan's ailing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. DOE-sponsored aerial surveys began measuring radiation around the plant about 1 week after the reactor was hit by a tsunami on 11 March. The maps released before, however, have been reporting current radiation levels. Now DOE has projected what the first-year dose would be to people living around the plant up to about 80 kilometers away (see map). The analysis, released on 18 April, takes into account the fact that radiation levels are slowly falling mainly due to the decay of iodine-131, which has a half-life of 8 days. It shows the high end of external exposures what people would receive if they didn't evacuate after the accident and didn't follow advice to stay indoors. In the red swath of land northwest of the plant where weather deposited a lot of fallout, potential exposures exceed 2000 millirems/year. That is the level at which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would consider relocating the public. The area includes the places outside the 20 kilometer evacuation zone where Japanese officials advised that people evacuate last week. (Yesterday, Japan announced it will begin enforcing a ban on entering the evacuation zone itself.) Although 2000 millirems over 1 year isn't an immediate health threat, it's enough to cause roughly one extra cancer case in 500 young adults and one case in 100 1-year-olds, says Owen Hoffman, a radiation risk expert with SENES Oak Ridge Inc. in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Still, there are parts of the worldin Guarapari, Brazil for example where natural background radiation levels are even higher. Also worth keeping in mind is that the normal disease

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/a-map-of-fukushimas-radiation.html

8/13/2011

A Map of Fukushima's Radiation Risks - ScienceInsider

Page 2 of 3

rate is much higher: four in 10 people will eventually develop cancer without exposure to extra radiation, Hoffman notes. Japanese officials will need to decide whether people should be allowed to return to these areas (and hot spots with even higher radiation levels) and explain the risks, says Hoffman. "It depends on how much hardship is associated [with long-term evacuation]. They will have to balance social and economic considerations against future health risks." *This item has been amended to confirm that DOE-sponsored aerial surveys began measuring radiation around the plant about 1 week after the reactor was hit by a tsunami, not 10 days.

Follow ScienceInsider on Facebook and Twitter

JAPAN QUAKE 2011

Posted in Asia | Environment/Climate

Email

Print |

Share

20

10

retweet

More

Login Share

Your name (required)

This Page

Please keep your comments polite and to the point....

Follow

Cancel Post

Echo 7 Items
Yulia Rudy "four in 10 people will eventually develop cancer without exposure to extra radiation" - are you sure? Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 4:03:46 PM Flag Like Reply Liked by Guest

Admin

Jocelyn Kaiser Yes, unfortunately the risk of developing cancer in one's lifetime is about 4 in 10 in the United States. You can see detailed statistics here: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lifetime-probability-ofdeveloping-or-dying-from-cancer Thursday, April 28, 2011, 5:59:51 PM Flag Like Reply Aaron Rizzio Keep in mind the average dose to someone living in the US is about 400 millirems/yr (including modern medical treatments), so basically for most people living within the 30 km exclusion zone a year's worth of radiation five times above natural background; this is too small of a dose to be statistically measurable in terms of any future cancer rate even using the linear-

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/a-map-of-fukushimas-radiation.html

8/13/2011

A Map of Fukushima's Radiation Risks - ScienceInsider

Page 3 of 3

no-threshold model. As the article partly relates areas of Brazil, India, China, and Iran have long been known to be naturally more radioactive due to either thorium-rich monozoite beach sands or radon emissions from natural spring water. Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 3:03:04 AM Flag Like Reply Norman Stone Doesn't the DOE get paid for underrating radiation risks? Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 1:12:51 AM Flag Like Reply Liked by Jorge I cannot understand how can anybody say that radiation from Fukushima is harmless. Electrics: There is too much money for gambling! Monday, April 25, 2011, 8:39:02 PM Flag Like Reply user_bender Guest

Chuck P. No one is saying it's harmless. Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 10:57:30 AM Flag Like Reply Aaron Rizzio I'll say it's harmless. The vast bulk of empirical evidence on radio-carcinogenesis indicates no statistically measurable cancer increases below about 25 times ambient radiation levels; however extensive data gathered to date appear to indicate there are clearly measurable "bio-positive" DECREASES in cancer rates -the so called hormesis effect. The tens of thousands of residents who are being forcibly evacuated (even the elderly!), if they were allowed to remain, even if they lived full-time out-of-doors, face no health risk from any radiation emitted from the four burned-out reactors. Even 20 years of UN World Health Organization data indicated only about 25 latent fatalities from Chernobyl -- yes thousands of apparently statistically anomalous thyroid cancers which, fortunately, are successfully treatable in 99% of all cases. Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 3:25:36 PM Flag Like Reply

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/a-map-of-fukushimas-radiation.html

8/13/2011